I want to have someone come in here and make me feel stupid about my profession.

11-17-2012, 05:03 PM

nastynice

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

I can't imagine anyone would rip anyone for that That is a common sense opinion.

u'd be surprised. I'm proof of that.

11-17-2012, 05:05 PM

nastynice

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

I want to have someone come in here and make me feel stupid about my profession.

why would anyone want to do that?

...I must've missed something

11-17-2012, 05:51 PM

Freakazoid

Even if mainstream medicine is affected by monetary incentives which it is , dangerous practices will always be outed eventually by competing researchers or through peer review. I would imagine that MD skeptics are usually more concerned by the price inequality of drugs and marketing constructs that make up 'designer' drugs.

There's a huge diference between that and the usual big pharma nonsense like big pharma squashing alt. med (if anything they integrate it if it works and market it to alt. quacks).

11-17-2012, 05:52 PM

Freakazoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by nastynice

why would anyone want to do that?

...I must've missed something

He wants someone to debate him about clinical research.

11-19-2012, 12:44 PM

Pacerlive

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

Really? Honest and critical are a minority of those doing reviewing grants? That's just silly. The grant review process is alot more subjective than people would think but it's not like people are not assessing the science.

Notice I did say in my field.. I think the real problem is that the funding rate has made it very difficult to practice science in this country. IF your a up and coming scientist and you don't have tenure you are pushed incredibly hard to produce papers and secure a R01.

11-19-2012, 01:00 PM

flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacerlive

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

Really? Honest and critical are a minority of those doing reviewing grants? That's just silly. The grant review process is alot more subjective than people would think but it's not like people are not assessing the science.

Notice I did say in my field.. I think the real problem is that the funding rate has made it very difficult to practice science in this country. IF your a up and coming scientist and you don't have tenure you are pushed incredibly hard to produce papers and secure a R01.

Yeah but that's the name of the game and there is more and more people with advanced degrees. It's a game of musical chairs where 80% of the chairs are removed on the first round.

The NIH is doing some things to help. 1 they are limiting senior researchers to a certain amount of funding (roughly 3 RO1s). That should help. I know of several researchers that would have put their names at the top of grants that aren't now, leaving them for us younge folks.

11-19-2012, 01:06 PM

Pacerlive

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

Yeah but that's the name of the game and there is more and more people with advanced degrees. It's a game of musical chairs where 80% of the chairs are removed on the first round.

The NIH is doing some things to help. 1 they are limiting senior researchers to a certain amount of funding (roughly 3 RO1s). That should help. I know of several researchers that would have put their names at the top of grants that aren't now, leaving them for us younge folks.

THere are ways around this. P01's and not to mention a number of private grants.

11-19-2012, 01:23 PM

Pacerlive

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

Yeah but that's the name of the game and there is more and more people with advanced degrees. It's a game of musical chairs where 80% of the chairs are removed on the first round.

I am not sure I understand your logic here. Are you impling that researchers get cycled in it of universities at a high rate? I defiantly don't feel this is the case.

11-19-2012, 01:45 PM

Freakazoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacerlive

I am not sure I understand your logic here. Are you impling that researchers get cycled in it of universities at a high rate? I defiantly don't feel this is the case.

I think he's suggesting that passionate and intelligent researchers will always find their chairs first.

11-19-2012, 01:59 PM

Pacerlive

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

An MD is really a technical degree not a research degree. Many MD's get the training necessary to be excellent scientists many do not. It is a problem not just for interpretation but for the nuts and bolts of the science that is done.

As far as "disproving" therapies, I'm not surprised that these things get close. And I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them might actually still be viable treatments. There is a pressure to create studies that will make it look like the drugs work. And there is a sheer level of variability that means a treatment that works in a small subset may be a valuable asset. If you don't use the right population you may miss where a drug or other treatment is valuable.

I think, as a scientist, throwing around the word proof, and disproof is very bold indeed.

I use these words since I have been around it long enough to call the BS for what it is. In fairness I work in a controversial field and I surely don't think all fields are plagued with the same level of problems that I have to deal with.

As far as clincal trials are concerned its more complicated but I am not simply talking about applying a drug and seeing a reduction in a tumor. In that case its quite easy to make a call.

In other fields such as stem cell therapy where it can be impossible to track the cells it can be very difficult to conclude an improvement. For one its not always clear that the cells differnetiate, survive and integrate into the host.

11-19-2012, 02:20 PM

ewing

ewing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freakazoid

It really depends on their education and what their background is. For example, my school is known for churning out scientists and few practitioners because they feel that that's where medicine is headed. This seems to be the trend at all the top schools as well. As a result, most of the MDs from my school end up getting a PhD or already have double doctorates and because of our unique university-health network, there's also a greater incentive to do so. The application process seems to reflect this as well.

However, I have seemed to notice what you're noticing as well especially from students in America (usually from the South) or smaller schools and osteopathic schools. A lot of them severely need rudimentary training in the scientific process as well as basic knowledge of statistics, biology and chemistry.

you're special

11-19-2012, 02:42 PM

flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacerlive

I am not sure I understand your logic here. Are you impling that researchers get cycled in it of universities at a high rate? I defiantly don't feel this is the case.

What I mean is that there are more and more PhDs being produced at universities and roughly the same number of faculty positions. Thus in the first round of musical chairs (out of graduate school/postdoc) 80% don't get a seat (academic position).

11-19-2012, 02:47 PM

flips333

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacerlive

I use these words since I have been around it long enough to call the BS for what it is. In fairness I work in a controversial field and I surely don't think all fields are plagued with the same level of problems that I have to deal with.

As far as clincal trials are concerned its more complicated but I am not simply talking about applying a drug and seeing a reduction in a tumor. In that case its quite easy to make a call.

In other fields such as stem cell therapy where it can be impossible to track the cells it can be very difficult to conclude an improvement. For one its not always clear that the cells differnetiate, survive and integrate into the host.

Bull **** doesn't prove or disprove anything. I've been around long enough to know that.

11-19-2012, 03:12 PM

Pacerlive

Quote:

Originally Posted by flips333

Bull **** doesn't prove or disprove anything. I've been around long enough to know that.

LOl. I have been a part of multiple papers showing different results in my field. I am also supported by grants off of those results.

Just out of curious have you ever tried to publish a paper that showed different results than a colleague? Have you ever tried to submit it to the same journal?